4.5 Article

Eco-sustainable recovery of antioxidants from spent coffee grounds by microwave-assisted extraction: Process optimization, kinetic modeling and biological validation

期刊

FOOD AND BIOPRODUCTS PROCESSING
卷 114, 期 -, 页码 31-42

出版社

INST CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.fbp.2018.11.004

关键词

Chlorogenic acid; Antiradical power; Polyphenols; Response surface methodology; Biocompatibility; Waste valorization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spent coffee grounds are a rich source of antioxidants and caffeine, which recovery and application in cosmetic field could lead to the formulation of healthier and cheaper products. Indeed, this by-product of food industry is available worldwide in huge amount, already in powder form, reducing the pretreatments required before extraction process. By microwave-assisted extraction is possible to enhance antioxidant extraction yields even when eco-friendly solvents are used. The purposes of this study were the optimization of the antioxidant extraction process, the analysis of its kinetics, and the production of a biocompatible extract to be potentially used in cosmetics. In this work, a first optimization was carried out on the solvent composition, temperature and extraction time by response surface methodology. The extract with the highest bioactive molecule content (32 mg/L of caffeine; 9 mg/L of chlorogenic acid), obtained at 150 degrees C, 90 min of extraction time and using ethanol/water 54:46 (v/v) as solvent, was tested on human keratinocytes NCTC 2544 in order to assess its biocompatibility. In addition, utilizing the optimal conditions for solvent composition and temperature, the kinetic of extraction was studied and Peleg's model well described experimental results, allowing to observe that an extraction time of 60 min was actually sufficient to reach the maximum polyphenol yield (46 +/- 2.9 Mg-caffeic acid equivalent/g(dried solid)). (C) 2018 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据